About your Search

20130117
20130125
STATION
MSNBCW 6
MSNBC 5
KNTV (NBC) 3
WBAL (NBC) 3
WRC (NBC) 3
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
that the 2012 election is a definitive test of your proposition. the reason is obama did not have a opponent who presented a clear and strong argument for reagan knight perspective of stronger government, less taxes, less dependency. you know, romney was a good man but he basically ran on the economy, lousy economy, we need a new ceo in washington. it didn't work. i think we will get a good tis of this in 2016. we are going to have the four years of obama's hyper liberalism, the kind of stuff he elucidated and enuns dated yesterday in the inaugural address. and i would say that if our ideology, conservative, small government ideology is correct, it will leave a mess behind. but we will also need as conservatives, republicans if you like, a standard bearer in 2016 who can make the case. and there is not a dearth of them. we have a very strong bench. we have got ryan. we have got rubio. we have got the governors, there is a whole young generation of conservatives who can make the case that will be the test. although i will say that if liberals keep winning elections, then your theory of a fundamen
. not on trying to organize democrats behind it. >> you know, if they're coming out of the election, there was an enormous amount of energy coming out of the election. tens of thousands of people volunteered their own time to re-elect this president, and as i said before, not just to re-elect this president, but to move an agenda forward. tens of thousands of people organized all over the country, wanting to continue working for change across the country. of the -- everybody that is on the obama e-mail list, we did -- we asked some questions after the election. what do you want to do? how do you want to affect change? we're not done yet. they're not done yet. organizing for action will be a very effective tool. to organize people all over the country. for the president's agenda, to move us forward, whether it's gun control, to protect our children, whether it's climate change, whether it's immigration reform, whether it's to protect our economy and continue going forward for the middle class. these are things that people voteded for, and they want to keep working on them, and also t
, democratic senator chuck schumer of new york and newly elected republican senator ted cruz of texas. welcome back as senator cruz to "meet the press." welcome to both of you. i want to start on the gun debate. because as i say, even before the second term is officially under way, this debate is well under way. here are the highlights of what the president wants to accomplish with comprehensive gun control. universal background checks. he'd like to pursue a ban on high capacity magazines. an assault weapons ban that, of course, lapsed in 2004, and he'd like stricter laws on gun trafficking. but senator schumer, just as i challenged wayne la pierre of the nra on this program very hard when this initially came up, i challenge you as well with the question of is this really going to make a difference? and rich lowry wrote something that caught my attention in "the national review." no one can write a law against mothers owning guns that one day might be turned against them by deranged sons who then commit horrific acts of murder-suicide. shooting rampages are hard to prevent because they are so
election, for example, i think the most racially divisive comment of the entire election was joe biden's comment where he said if the republicans win, they are, quote, going to put y'all back in chains. that made my heart weep to see a sitting vice president playing to racial fears and playing on those issues. i think that's unfortunate. i don't think it has any place in politics. >> chuck hagel, you were very tepid on "meet the press" a couple of weeks ago. >> i was. >> now you've met with him, you're more comfortable, you'll support him? >> i am. >> what changed? >> i said on your show that i had real concerns. i spent 90 minutes with him. i asked him very specific questions on the things that troubled me. his answers were forth right. and they were answers that alayed my concerns. should we keep every option on the table to prevent a nuclear iran? yes. i went further. i said, do you think we can tolerate a nuclear iran? he said no. and i said to him, well, then, if we had to use military as the only choice, would you? he said yes. second, i asked him hezbollah and hamas, should they
. maybe roosevelt and hoover an example of that. franklin roosevelt had been elected by a landslide in 1932 over president hoover who was considered to be responsible for the great depression and roosevelt was a great schmoozer. finally, they reduced to looking at the super structure of thing it was the commerce department that was being built and roosevelt said, lovely steel. that was sort of the end of the conversation. the rest of the ride they went in silence. this happens much too often, but not on a second term. >> and david gregory, about a two-mile drive. >> and you remember in the modern era, george w. bush -- the language plate is -- >> yeah, the license plate just for a second here is a story. it's a -- kind of a protest legal local license plate here in washington, d.c. taxation without representation. the president has opted to use them on all the limousines. >> and that always comes up for presidents. >> d.c. has a delegate, a nonvoting member of congress. >> george w. bush met president clinton and they got along famously. they were swapping stories and how bush raise
confident from his re-election. some might use the word cocky, and that he has become more partisan and more hard nosed. would you agree with that sae assessment? >> and is it by necessity or choice? >> no, i think he's become -- he's practical. and if the other side is going to take a position that they're going to oppose you on every initiative, you have to seek national support. in a democracy, people push policy forward not the politicians and so that's a lesson that he has drawn from the first term. that said, as far as i can -- as i know, and as i know him, his door is always open to people who are willing to work together to solve problems and one hopes in the next four years there will be a spirit of cooperation. understand we're never going to agree on anything. that's why we have two parties. in order to move the country forward we have to move together. >> david axelrod, always good to see you. >> good to see you, savannah. >> i know you'll be watching. we will have more on the second inauguration, but first natalie morales has a check of the other top stories. good morning. >> go
interesting thing to compare him to would be right after the 2010 elections when they brought in daly which signaled that they wanted to change their approach inside the white house, wanted to reach out to business, wanted to try to reach out to republicans, have better relationships with the house and senate. what this pick signals is that it's going to be a more combative white house, continue to be a pretty insular white house. i think some of the bellyaching speci internally, it's another white guy in leadership role inside the white house. it signals to me an approach where they're ready for combat. we see that in the legislation they're talking about for the next year that he wants to be pushing. and that also just the reality that the next two years are not going to be a pleasant two years for relationships between the white house and congress. nobody's expecting a grand bargain anymore. i think the chance -- they had a good chance to have one a couple months ago. they have almost no chance to get one now. the reality is it's going to be grind it out for the next couple years. he has
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)